ML20237B654

Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Intervenors Motion for Leave to Reply to Lilco & Staff Proposed Findings).* Intervenors 871005 Motion Denied Due to Improper Attempt to Influence & Prolong ASLB Deliberations.Served on 871208

ML20237B654
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/07/1987
From:	Frye J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#487-5099 86-534-01-OL, 86-534-1-OL, OL-5, NUDOCS 8712170038
Download: ML20237B654 (2)

Text

_

00tKEit:0 IBNF C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 87 DEC -8 P3 :16 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOhfii'rg)hi(((('

BRANLH Lefore Administrative Judges John H Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shon SERVED DEC -81987

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Emergency Planning)

)

(Shoreman Nuclear Power ) (ASLBP No. 86-534-01 OL)

Station, Unit 1) )

) December 7, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Interveners' Motion for Leave to Reply to LILCO's and Staff's Proposed Findings)

On October 5, 1987, Interveners Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton filed a motion seeking leave to reply to LILCO's and Staff's proposed findings.

Interveners candidly state that they feel compelled to reply ,

l because LILCO, and, to a lesser extent, Staff have presented j arguments which are not accurate. Motion, at 4-5. Both LILCO and Staff oppose the motion, correctly pointing out {

l that the Interveners justification for seeking leave to file a reply is insufficient.

Both LILCO and Staff also correctly point out that the motion itself is a substantive reply to the findings of B712170038 B71007 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR 1

0S02-

l LILCO and Staff. LILCO's October 8 opposition, at 3; j Staff's October 22 response, at 2. The motion extensively reargues the record. It is clearly an improper attempt to influence and, perhaps, prolong this Board's deliberations.

Consequently, we have not considered the substantive )

elements of the motion.

We are also compelled to note that this is the second time that counsel over whose signature the motion was filed has engaged in questionable conduct. Earlier in this proceeding, a question arose whether counsel had knowingly misled the Board with respect to the availability of witnesses. Tr. 5447-56. While counsel vigorously denied that such was the case, the fact remains that, had he exercised better judgement, neither situation would have arisen. The Board expects higher standards than these to be followed.

l l

Interveners' October 5 motion is denied.

l l It is so ORDERED. I FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

[

l Jh H Ffye, III, Chairman AM ISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland December 7, 1987 l

\